IPv6 faster/better proof? was Re: Need /24 (arin) asap
surfer at mauigateway.com
Mon Jun 11 21:16:56 UTC 2018
--- cb.list6 at gmail.com wrote:
From: Ca By <cb.list6 at gmail.com>
> Meanwhile, FB reports that 75% of mobiles in the USA
> reach them via ipv6
> And Akaimai reports 80% of mobiles
And they both report ipv6 is faster / better.
Hmm... Faster and better?
The links seem to be an IPv6 cheerleader write up.
I looked at the URLs and the URLs one pointed to and
pulled out everything related to IPv6 being
"For dual-stacked hostnames we typically see higher
average estimated throughput over IPv6 than over IPv4.
Some of this may be due to IPv6-connected users being
correlated with better connectivity, but over half of
dual-stacked hostnames (weighted by daily bytes
delivered) have IPv6 estimated throughput at least 50%
faster than IPv4, and 90% of these hostnames have the
IPv6 estimated throughput at least 10% faster than
"People using Facebook services typically see better
performance over IPv6..."
and it points to
"We’ve long been anticipating the exhaustion of IPv
in favor of the speed and performance benefits of
"We’ve observed that accessing Facebook can be 10-15
percent faster over IPv6."
I'd sure like to see how they came up with these
numbers in a technically oriented paper. There
should be no difference, except for no CGN or Happy
Eyeballs working better or something similar. Am I
missing something? Same routers; same links; same
RTTs; same interrupt times on servers; same etc, etc
for both protocols.
More information about the NANOG